Destroying The Modern Lie About It Being Wrong To Directly Confront Sinners

Brother Mike Ratliff wrote this in response to the tactics of the emergent church – which truthfully is no church at all because LIKE THE POST VATICAN II ROMAN CATHOLICS they are a pluralist “many paths to heaven” separate religion entirely – but it applies to attitudes and practices common to modern Christianity. If you will not vigorously promote and defend the faith, then you have no faith at all. You are a barren vine, a fig tree that is not bearing fruit and will be cursed and withered by Jesus Christ. See Mike Ratliff’s post below.

9 Responses to “Destroying The Modern Lie About It Being Wrong To Directly Confront Sinners”

nansaid

Dianesaid

Job
I have fellowshipped at seeker sensitive churches and have experienced the frustration of why some of the leaders rarely taught on our need of repentance, holiness etc. These gatherings were of all denominations. Then there are fellowships of angry loveless hypocrites that Christ also hates, of all denominations.

Mike and Dan are brothers in Christ, and are having a much needed discussion. There is a pattern of behavior that’s important to watch and seriously seek the Lord about, if we’re serious about honoring Christ’s command to love our brother.

Believer “A” believes he can say anything he wants against another believer or nonbeliever because Christ drove the money changers from the Temple and called the Scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, vipers etc. “A” disregards THE MANY instances of Christ’s compassion towards sinful humanity and hardens his heart. This believer usually becomes abusive and deluded about his own standing before God, believing he’s doing “God’s service”.

Believer “B” clarifies his beliefs and expresses those aspects of Christ ministry that “A” disregards, “B’s” effort at times seems to fall on deaf ears.

They both can learn so much from each other, but the sinful broadbrush condemnation of the other prevents this.
____________

A lot is publicly discussed about the bad fruit of the Pentacostal/Charismatic movements, but the time is overdue for the discussion of the ungodly fruit coming from Reformed believers.

“but the time is overdue for the discussion of the ungodly fruit coming from Reformed believers.”

True. Unfortunately, as Reformed congregations are rarely on TV or in the media (unless they are liberal) information on their negative practices and doctrines is much harder to come by. I will point out that I have gone after amillennialism and infant baptism (preterism not so much), though not as much as I should have.

Now I will point out that I have learned some things concerning covenant theology and the behavior of Reformers John Calvin, John Knox and Ulrich Zwingli (Martin Luther, who was by far the best of the bunch, was mostly OK even if he was “confused” concerning justification and the Lord’s Supper) in recent months, but regrettably that is one of the many things that I have wished to talk about but haven’t had time to.

Dianesaid

To be honest
I would like to see Christians who misunderstand or strongly disagree with other Christians make an effort to discuss those issues in a respectful manner, instead of the attack first-ask questions later method.

There are a lot of false teachings and slippery slopes abound in all directions, so it is perilous for any group of believers to believe they are above Christ’s teachings when it comes to working out differences with other people, even those in the emergent group.

I do not disagree with you. However, the article that I linked to opposed a specific false doctrine with unassailable scripture explanations, and the false doctrine in question is by no means limited to any one denomination or movement. And honestly, sometimes people are just flat wrong, and their error needs to be directly opposed. This whole “Jesus never condemned anybody” is a lie from the pit of hell, and the people trafficking this lie have an agenda that is 100% anti – Christ. As a matter of fact, a reason why I put it up because the exact same thing was being claimed by this fellow from the Todd Bentley school in a link that I put up 3 weeks ago. https://healtheland.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/eisegesis-versus-exegesis-when-doctrine-is-set-aside-for-opinions-and-feelings/ (Remember when Pentecostal/charismatics used to stress holiness and were oft called legalists as a result? Now they are going around calling everybody else legalists!) So when you have the emergents, the TBN crowd, the liberal theologians, and the homosexual theologians all repeating the same “Jesus Christ never condemned anyone” lie at the same time, what is really going on? What is the real source of it all? Whatever it is, it has to be exposed and opposed. That has to be done.

Dianesaid

We both agree that not confronting sin is wrong, and Dan is saying the same thing. He has stated that Christ is the only way to the Father, and that he talks about sin and repentance. His point is Christ did not beat up everyone He came across with condemnation. The title of that chapter could easily be misunderstood, but his point is correct and something we’re going to have to take seriously if we’re going to follow Christ.

There is no doubt, the Emergent movement is going to suffer greatly if they dont embrace the emphasis Christ places on us to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow Him. But here is an example where Dan has it right. He is properly showing Christ compassion, not condemning confrontation, with the woman at the well. Not only that, but he even takes the time to come to Mike’s blog to explain the chapter in question. He brings up the fact that we MUST

Just did. What Kimball and his sort will never acknowledge is that the reason why people think that Christians are arrogant and judgmental isn’t the way that we approach people. It is because we believe that people who do not submit to the Lordship of Jesus Christ will burn for eternity in the lake of fire. Let Kimball go try to evangelize a hard core member of ACT – UP, GLAAD, or the Human Rights Campaign. At some point, Kimball will have to acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin and that unrepentant sinners are going to the lake of fire, and at that point Kimball will be denounced as a hateful homophobic bigot whose views need to be silenced just as does Fred Phelps. They will say “well, that Kimball was certainly nicer and more pleasant than Fred Phelps, but his views are just as wrong, dangerous, and hateful.” You do recall how these people tore into Rick Warren, who is practically emergent himself, after all?

Kimball knows full well that evangelical and fundamental preachers don’t stand in the pulpits railing against sinners Sunday after Sunday, and that they aren’t standing in the streets yelling “repent or burn in hell!” to passerby. Take Ray Comfort’s ministry for example. Comfort doesn’t verbally abuse people. He asks them if they’ve broken one of the 10 commandments, and when they say “Yes” he tells them that they need a Savior.

Also, let’s say that Kimball’s interpretation of the Samaritan woman at the well is correct. It isn’t, but let’s pretend for the sake of discussion. The fact would remain that the Samaritan woman was not the only person that Jesus Christ talked to, and further her salvation narrative was not the only salvation narrative in the Bible. So even if Kimball was right – and he isn’t – then he would still be guilty of taking an aberration and making it normative.

I mean, take Peter in Acts. On one hand, when Peter went to Cornelius, did he condemn Cornelius as a vile sinner? Of course not. And Kimball would certainly use that as evidence that the message of Christianity is not one of condemnation. But in doing so, he would ignore Peter’s sermons where he condemned the Jerusalem Jews their actions in the death of Jesus Christ, and they were, as Acts 2:37 says, “pricked in their hearts.” And Peter’s sermon in Acts 2 was nothing compared to his Acts 3 sermon, nor of the words in Acts 5 and Acts 7, where it said that the hearers were “cut to their hearts.”

Kimball is not saying that people like Ratliff are unbalanced in their understanding and presentation of justice and mercy, judgment and compassion. He is saying that pricking and cutting hearts is wrong. Period. He is saying that people reject and mistrust Christians because we from time to time have to rebuke, upbraid, denounce, and convict just as Moses, Jeremiah, Nathan, Joshua, Peter, Paul, James, and Jesus Christ did, and his solution is to ignore what the Bible says about how the world will always hate and reject the foolishness of the gospel and persecute the church over its gospel and its Christ just as it persecuted Christ, and to take certain Bible narratives out of their context to support their “Christians are arrogant and judging and need to be humble and loving” message.

Dan says “The whole point is saying that we don’t ever hold back truth, but how we say it with love, listening, dialogue etc. is what then gives us a voice where we now aren’t trusted as a voice.” Pardon me, but hasn’t he ever read where the same Jesus Christ that He purports to serve told us that the world will reject us just as it rejected Him? There is John 15:18-19, John 17:14, 1 John 3:12-13, James 4:4, Matthew 10:23-25, and that is just the tip of the iceberg.

Now as someone who like Ratliff believes in election and predestination (although I believe in single predestination, whether Ratliff believes in double predestination I know not) it irritates me when Calvinists resort to this. First, Paul’s speech at Mars Hill would tend to oppose the notion that it is ever inappropriate to try to persuade unbelievers or to try to reach them on their level. Second, the most effective Reformed evangelists – pietists like the Moravians and George Whitefield and Reformed Baptists like William Carey and Charles Spurgeon – rejected that thinking as unhelpful. Yet, even in that comment, Ratliff states this: “I am not saying that God wants us to be obnoxious or arrogant in our dealing with the Lost, no, we are to be Christlike with all.”

So even in the midst of his producing an unhelpful statement, Ratliff is far closer to what the Bible says than is Kimball, who has utterly deluded himself into believing that if only he can be nicer, and offer an edited unbalanced view of scripture and of Jesus Christ, then the world won’t reject and hate him for Christ’s sake, or at least won’t reject and hate him as much as it will the less learned and enlightened Christians.

“BTW, Pentecostals and Emergent are not the same group.” You are correct. Pentecostals are far, far, far closer to what the Bible actually says than emergents are. As I have oft stated in the past, I have no problem whatsoever with Pentecostals that adhere to an honest literal interpretation of scripture. What is a Pentecostal anyway? A Baptist (or Methodist) who rejects cessationism. Well, I reject cessationism, being unable to find a single scripture that supports this doctrine and having suspicious as to how and why it came about, so I guess that makes me as Pentecostal as anyone else.

Dianesaid

Job
where does Dan say Christians won’t be hated? It is very clear that Christians will be reviled and persecuted for Christ, but the point that Kimball is making, that you don’t seem to acknowledge the validity in, is that some Christians are reviled for their ungodly attitudes.

Contrary to your belief in predestination, it does matter to Christ how we treat believers and nonbelievers.

Christ says…
“but woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, NOR DO YOU ALLOW THOSE WHO ARE ENTERING TO GO IN.”
Matt 23:13

Not to start a free will/pred debate, I only mention it to confront the ‘modern lie’ that it doesnt matter how we treat people and present the truth. If it doesnt matter to God how people are treated, because in your opinion theyre going to be saved anyway, what do you do with these Words??

Did Kimball state homosexuality was not sin, or is this a misrepresentation of Kimball?

An interpretation that Jesus came harsh and condemning to the woman at the well, is a wrong interpretation. How is Dan wrong in his interpretation of John 4?

Jesus told stories, healed the sick, cast out demons, raised the dead, preached repent and believe, preached repent or perish.
Jesus preached convicting messages, but their is a difference between condemning attitudes and messages that prick the heart.

How have you come to the knowledge of what Dan personally believes? I certainly dont know what Dan believes about what is ‘normative’, other than his statements that you linked to, and there are more than one conclusion you can come to about what he said. One, that is quite obvious to me, is that he is emphasising that Christ approaches people in different ways.

Why dont you invite Dan to come here and answer some of your questions?